JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.424 dated 01.12.2024, registered under Sections 21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that on 01.12.2024 the police party while on patrolling laid barricading at the boarder road ahead of truck union, when they saw two clean shaved persons riding on black coloured motorcycle. On seeing the police, they got perplexed and tried to turn back the motorcycle. However, on the basis of suspicion, they were apprehended by the Police and on asking, rider of the motorcycle disclosed his name to be Karnail Singh, whereas, pillion rider disclosed his name to be Sandeep Singh (petitioner). They were suspected to be carrying some contraband. Thus, search was conducted and on conducting personal search of Sandeep Singh, 300 grams of heroin was recovered, whereas, from the personal search of Karnail Singh, 205 grams of heroin was recovered. They failed to produce any licence regarding the possession of the same, and thus, on registration of the FIR, they were arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced. Samples taken were sent to the FSL. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court-I, Ferozepur praying for grant of regular bail. However, after hearing both the sides, the learned Court finding no merit in the same, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 10.03.2025. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court twice by way of filing CRM-M-22008-2025 and CRM-M-40970-2025, however, the same were dismissed as withdrawn vide separate orders dated 01.05.2025 and 21.08.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court again praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present third petition.

3. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He submits that admittedly the alleged recovery is from a public place, however, no independent witness has been joined. He submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner alongwith co-accused was coming on motorcycle when, they were stopped by the police. The petitioner was alleged riding pillion on the motorcycle. To buttress his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He submits that the co-accused, who was riding the motorcycle, has already been granted bail by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last more than one year, however, till date there is no material progress in the trial. He, thus, has submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently controverted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that it is a case of chance recovery. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith the co- accused was apprehended on the spot by the police. From the search of the co-accused, 205 grams of heroin was recovered, which was a non- commercial quantity. So far as the petitioner is concerned, from his search 300 grams of heroin was recovered, which is a commercial quantity and thus, provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. On instructions, she has submitted that out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, one witness has been examined till date. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that though from co-accused the recovered contraband was non-commercial, however, he has been granted bail by this Court. As contended before this Court, no independent witness has been joined. The custody certificate would show that the petitioner has suffered